In the case of early abortions like the morning after pill, mostly the cells would be reabsorbed into the women's body.

In some other cases, once the fetus is terminated it would be like a heavy period. Or if that gets to extreme she would have to have a DNC/DNE, where they basiclly go in and scrap and vacum out the woman.

in the case of partial birth abortion, the baby is birthed until crowing, the skull is punctured and the brain is sucked out. Then the body is deleivered and desposed of.

(I'll be ignoring the question of what actually is legal in the US, and anywhere else for that matter, and focus on the philosophical implications.)

Why might it be illegal to abort a baby five seconds after birth, but not five seconds before birth? Well, if a line is to be drawn, it must be drawn somewhere. The birth event seems like a useful and straightforward demarcation. One could also say it is prudent to regulate abortion.

Few will presently argue that one shouldn't be allowed to abort a glob of human embryonic cells on the basis that the cell globule deserves direct legal status as a human (although many will argue that it should be given indirectly legal status as something that affects humans), but why? Is it because it's not yet "human"? When is it human, then? What does that even mean and why is that of such importance? Does anyone imagine there is some scientific answer to any of this? Ethics is not mathematically or scientifically soluable.

Mentally, nothing special seperates a one month old baby from a three year old cow (with the exception that the cow is quite a bit more astute, generally). What does seperate a baby from a cow is the baby's relationship to a human community. We have a human centric value system.

Abortion: see no evil, hear no evil. We don't call it human. We kick it out of the "Human Club", and comfort ourselves with the view that it's not human, it's not deserving of human rights. We still wouldn't think it was in good taste to eat a fetus, but the same is true of cats. (Even though I hear they can be quite tasty.) What's it mean? A lot of inconsistent things.

It is the self-affirming "Human Club", it is the community, that collectively decides what is proper and what is improper.

"I am curious to see how people who are pro choice see this as different from a late term/partial bith abortion."

It never fails to amaze me how politico can use and distort imagery.

Abortions past the third trimester are universally illegal. There are extremely rare procedures that are used when deemed "medically necesary". You cannot request a "late term or partial birth" abortion.

The best way to view such procedures is to think of them as similar to the medical amputation of a limb. You cannot go to a medical facility and have them simply chop a limb off. However in rare circumstances it may be necesary to save your life.

As has been said the actual late term/partial procedures that are being used to scare people are unbelievably rare. And the real kicker. Those who are using these procedures as an anti abortion rallying cry are lying to you by way of omission. They somehow neglect to inform the people they are lecturing when and why the procedures are used. These procedures are used to remove an already stillborn fetus or biologically unviable fetus (ie no brain or organs, gross developmental failure) from the mothers womb, before it can cause sepsis, infection and death in the mother. Read that again. It is used to remove an already dead baby from the mother. Those who seek to remove sound medical judgement from doctors and health care professionals, and instead legislate it, would insist that a woman carry a dead baby to term, regardless of the risk to her own health.

"When a soceity condones killing of infants why is there suprise that kids will do things like this?"

I honestly don't believe the kids were thinking about this when they decided to do birth and bag the kid. Either way, no one here knows the answer to that one, so no point in putting much into it.

"Late term abortion is legal in some states I believe. Partial birth abortions should be out lawed but under Bush that will not happen. Everyone that is for that practice should be forced to watch one."

I'm not positive on this, but isn't partial birth abortion only an option if the mothers life is at risk? If the mothers life is at risk then it should be her call. She's been here longer, shes got senority. I don't believe it is in the best interests of the child to be motherless.

Yes, huge difference. Sex usually lasts under 5 minutes, and that is what starts this whole mess in the first place - 5 minutes can make a HUGE difference. If you believe life starts at fertilization then these particular 5 minutes don't matter to you. If you believe life starts at birth, then these 5 minutes make all the difference in the world. I personally believe life starts at birth, so these 5 minutes turn it from "emergency abortion" to "murder" for ME.

The two kids should be charged with murder because in the eyes of the law they killed a human. These rhetorical questions and slanted views you keep spewing are a weak attempt at having a real debate. Please pull your head out of your ***.